YOGENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner the respondent. Electricity Board and the State.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner on a departmental proceeding initiated against him enquiry was held and the enquiry officer after detailed analysis of evidence which had come in the same, concluded that both the charges brought against the proceedee are not established/proved.

(3.) THE petitioner, therefore, submits that this is an erroneous order. He does not dispute the right of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. But in case he decides to disagree with the findings of the enquiry he ought to have issued a notice to the delinquent giving out his reason and evidence by virtue of which he is in disagreement with the enquiry officer. It is only after the employee files his show cause then the question of either imposing punishment or exonerating the employee from the charges will come UP. According to the petitioner the disciplinary authority has mistakenly merged the two steps into one. The order contained in annexure -22 is a notice contemplating punishment rather than a notice Knowing disagreement with the finding of the enquiry officer. Reading of annexure -22 does disclose the position which has been indicated by the petitioner.